But, will someone please explain this last statement? Why does this mean there would be no life on Earth's surface?"

"The understanding of the inner core has direct consequences for generation and maintenance of the geomagnetic field, and without the geomagnetic field there would be no life on Earth's surface."

"without the geomagnetic field there would be no life on Earth's surface." Refers to charged particles from cosmic events getting deflected to the poles of the planet by the magnetic field lines generated by Earth's Dynamo. It's what causes the Northern Lights. It's assumed that without the mag envelope the atmosphere alone wouldn't be enough to keep life as life. There'd probably still be Oceanic life since the water would be a much better shield than atmos, but life on land would have a harder time. That's assuming the water could stay bonded and not just ionize into oxy which would redox and hydrogen which would "boil off" and blow away into space, leaving the planet arid like Mars or mercury.

"without the geomagnetic field there would be no life on Earth's surface." Refers to charged particles from cosmic events getting deflected to the poles of the planet by the magnetic field lines generated by Earth's Dynamo. It's what causes the Northern Lights. It's assumed that without the mag envelope the atmosphere alone wouldn't be enough to keep life as life. There'd probably still be Oceanic life since the water would be a much better shield than atmos, but life on land would have a harder time. That's assuming the water could stay bonded and not just ionize into oxy which would redox and hydrogen which would "boil off" and blow away into space, leaving the planet arid like Mars or mercury.

That help?

I am sorry. Not really. I am missing something. Some thinking about it may help. The clue is in those charged particles? Thanks for trying.

I am sorry. Not really. I am missing something. Some thinking about it may help. The clue is in those charged particles? Thanks for trying.

Hazel, the issue is the stream of charged particles (ions) coming from the sun, which are very reactive because they want to acquire or lose an electron in order to become neutral. These ions would be very likely to break chemical bonds in any complex molecules that were forming on the the early Earth, which would make it hard for life to start.

However charged particles that enter a magnetic field experience a force, at right angles to the direction they are travelling, which bends their path. The presence of the Earth's magnetic field (which arises from electric currents in the conductive, liquid core of the planet) deflects these solar ions away from the surface. So the magnetic field is a sort of protective force field for the Earth, sheltering it from the bombardment.

If the Earth did not have such a core, it is reasonable to think life would have found it either harder to get started or completely impossible.

Hazel, the issue is the stream of charged particles (ions) coming from the sun, which are very reactive because they want to acquire or lose an electron in order to become neutral. These ions would be very likely to break chemical bonds in any complex molecules that were forming on the the early Earth, which would make it hard for life to start.

However charged particles that enter a magnetic field experience a force, at right angles to the direction they are travelling, which bends their path. The presence of the Earth's magnetic field (which arises from electric currents in the conductive, liquid core of the planet) deflects these solar ions away from the surface. So the magnetic field is a sort of protective force field for the Earth, sheltering it from the bombardment.

If the Earth did not have such a core, it is reasonable to think life would have found it either harder to get started or completely impossible.

Ah! Got it! Little thieves these ions are. What they need, they take without permission. I know some people like that.